Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (2.43 seconds)
Documents citing Marico Limited vs Agro Tech Foods Limited on 1 November, 2010

Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt Ltd vs Procter & Gamble Manufacturing ... on 9 May, 2014

17. Similarly, in Marico Limited vs. Agro Tech Foods Limited (supra), the registered trade mark was "LOSORB" and "LO-SORB". The appellant therein was also using the word "LOW ABSORB" though it was not a registered trade mark. Defendant therein was using the trade mark "Sundrop" with the expression "WITH LOW ABSORB TECHNOLOGY". Hence, the issue was as to whether an action of passing off would be maintainable against the defendant for use of the mark LOW ABSORB and for infringement of the mark LOSORB and LO-SORB. The Court came to the conclusion that the mark LOW ABSORB only describes the characteristics of the product i.e. edible oil and ordinarily and normally incapable of being distinctive. Hence, interim injunction as prayed for on the ground of passing off was rejected. Injunction for infringement action for LOSORB and LO-SORB was also rejected as prima facie the registration of the plaintiff‟s mark in that case was invalid and no action for infringement would lie.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 9 - J Nath - Full Document

Soothe Healthcare Private Limited vs Dabur India Limited on 3 March, 2022

In my view, the present case is covered on all fours by the judgments in Marico Ltd. vs. Agro Tech Foods Ltd. (supra) and Ultratech Cement Limited Grasim Industries Limited vs. Dalmia Cement Bharat Limited and Ors (supra). I have already held that the word „Super‟ is a descriptive and a laudatory word of the English language. Furthermore, it is common to the trade. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot have the exclusive right to use the word „Super‟ and would not to be entitled to grant of injunction in terms of Sections 28, 29 and 30 of the Act. Even otherwise, the word „Super‟ is not a CS(COMM) 18/2022 Page 14 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA ARYA Signing Date:03.03.2022 12:57:08 distinctive or the essential part of the composite marks registered by the plaintiff. Therefore, in terms of Section 17(2) of the Act, the plaintiff is not entitled to grant of injunction in respect of the word „Super‟.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 3 - A Bansal - Full Document

Ireo Pvt. Ltd. vs Genesis Infratech Pvt. Ltd on 14 March, 2014

34. The learned senior counsel for the defendant has relied heavily for the above contention on the judgment of this High Court in the case of Marico Ltd v. Agro Tech Foods Ltd.(supra). However, the said judgment would have no application inasmuch as what the court held in that case is that the defendant could use the expression "with low absorb technology‟ because this is only a descriptive use by normal English words indicative of the kind, quality, intended purpose of the goods.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 8 - J Nath - Full Document

Rb Health (Us) Llc & Anr. vs Dabur India Limited on 27 November, 2020

9.2. Marks which are descriptive cannot be monopolised and, therefore, no passing off action will lie against its use. [Marico Ltd. vs. Agro Tech, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3806] 9.3. Since the taglines or descriptive marks are not registered, therefore, no case of infringement can be made out by the plaintiffs. The mere fact that the label is registered does not give rights in the descriptive marks. In this behalf, reference was made to Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 [in short "Trade Marks Act"].
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 6 - R Shakdher - Full Document

Moonshine Technology Private Limited vs Tictok Skill Games Private Limited & ... on 31 January, 2022

9. Per contra, Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, learned counsel for the defendants, submitted that no interim injunction could be granted in the present case inasmuch as, the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate the existence of a prima facie case or the „balance of convenience‟ being in Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 331/2021 Page 8 of 29 Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:31.01.2022 18:12:26 its favour or even that the plaintiff would suffer „irreparable loss and injury‟ if the interim injunction was to be refused. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants that the word "Baazi" is a generic word, meaning "bet" or a "game" in Urdu. Therefore, since the plaintiff was using the word "Baazi" for a web-based gaming application, which involved betting, the word "Baazi" merely described their services. Thus, such a descriptive word used in relation to gaming services could not be monopolized by any person. Reliance has been placed on the decision in Marico Limited v. Agri Tech Foods Limited, 2010 SCC Online Del 3806.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 3 - A Menon - Full Document

Shamrock Geoscience Ltd & Anr. vs Kaba Infratech Private Limited & Anr. on 6 October, 2022

In this regard, it would be pertinent to note that Division Bench of this Court in Marico Limited v. Agro Food Limited,8 while examining the interplay between Sections 28, 31 and 124 of the Act, held that it would be permissible for Courts to prima facie examine validity of registration for the purposes of deciding interlocutory applications.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - S Narula - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next